The importance of grading to bring out a more pleasing image

jcadge said:
Sorry for the misunderstanding Run & Gun, Ansel Adam’s zone system has NO application when shooting video, we were talking about how Ansel Adams’ prints were beautiful and I wanted to point out some of that was due to how he exposed & developed the FILM.

I totally agree with Doug about grading, these days especially filming outdoors, I always film in RAW/Log, not with a baked in look like rec 709. You need to capture the most information possible giving you more options to grade a nice image.

When shooting film Ansel Adam’s Zone System used film processing to help obtain a better negative, basically speaking when you push film you increase the contrast and when you pull film you decrease the contrast. He had to decide on one aperture and expose & develop accordingly which gave him a better starting point for making the perfect print.

Doug, I haven’t shot stock in years, are you mainly shooting RF or RM video stock these days?
Click to expand...

I wasn't directing the comment at you. Just kind of making a generalized comment about the way that I often see or perceive the Zone System being presented.
 
Run&Gun said:
I always want my footage/images to be seen in their best light (no pun intended. Or was it...). But I was just curious if anyone ever wanted the log/RAW version of any clips, so that they could grade them to integrate better with the overall program they may be used in.
Click to expand...

The BBC tracked me down a couple of times and bought ungraded footage directly from me, based on what they saw at one of the stock agencies. But I'd never upload the ungraded.
 
Some nice grades there Doug, and great reach on that 200-600!

Where are you shooting from, the causeway or the media site? Do you have creds?
 
Thanks.
Yes, I have credentials to shoot from KSC or the Space Force Station. However, the actual shooting location for each launch varies, depending on the pad, type of rocket, mission, weather, time of day, booster return or not, and client. Two of this videos in this thread were shot from a location on Loop Road (not the causeway) and one from a public location at the Cape Canaveral National Seashore.

I wish I had the time to get my ass over to Texas for the expected launch of Starship tomorrow morning. That is going to be awesome. Can't wait until they move those monster rockets to KSC.
 
To some extent adjusting the horrid 'paint' menu in sony cameras was adjusting the image to the scene. And could be eqated to the push pull processeing.

Personally I never was about to be good at it.

Again exposing.. not for the on monitor look but exposing to capture data (using the WFM to choose stop not screen look) is also making the best nagative to take to the 'dark room'
.
this was well explored in the expose Slog 1 stop over era.

--

What is delogging and what is grading?

I guess stage one .. delivering a 'real' image is not grading. Adding artistic looks after is grading.

so - adding lut - not grading
correcting so greay areas are 50-50-50 etc - not grading

pulling secondaries.. is this technical or art??

I guess it is technical cos you might do it on a corporate.

Making blue shadows, grain or a vignette.. grading

I guess work beyond the look of a corporate shoot of a 'popular' TV show is grading the first step is 'correction'
 
Last edited:
I would argue (in the nicest way) that Dougs opening video is not 'graded' the shots are corrected to look good - that is done well and entirely valuable to the image delivery process.

Now if if had some rocket shots to look like 1968 Kodakchrome (which might be a fun look for a space launch) then that would be grading.

No director woud object to Dougs corrections.

A director.. can comment on a grade.. "I dont like the happy kodachrome ..retro look, make it more cold war"
 
And this directorial imput is why one has alsways (if possible) shot flat and added artistic in post.

I was on inta and KF are selling some in lens filter that diffuses the highlights.

I would not personally choose that in camera because I think highlight can be diffused (halated) in post and to bake that is dangerous as it might become not what the director wants.. or become 'outdated' as the footage becomes archival.
 
I've been looking long and hard at the Scatter app, which is doing really solid recreations of various existing diffusion filters with the added bonus of being able to selectively place within the image via windows. So you can control the halation at one level overall and more or less on highlights like a hot window. At this stage of the game, if I know that I will be able to dictate the look of a project in post I can't see any reason not to do it this way. Working with filters on set is time consuming and creates issues (double reflections of highlights, having to flag off the lens to avoid veiling flare etc). Simplifying that process while adding flexibility later is a real plus. The danger of course is that it can also be removed later, if anyone is wise to it. I think the key is to bake this and whatever else is desired (LUT) in as a basic look onto dailies so the director et all live with the footage during the edit, so they don't get too used to the flat vanilla and decide that's how they want it to stay.
 
Here ther is a mix of (your) pragmatic realism and stupidity (of the industry)

One should be able to shoot flat and have some form of conversation and agreement about the final look

To some extent you have artistic input and to some extent you are paid to provide footage.

This should be agreed an embarkation on a project and also.. (and this is the big leap) producers need to understand what that agreement is or means!
 
morgan_moore said:
Here ther is a mix of (your) pragmatic realism and stupidity (of the industry)

One should be able to shoot flat and have some form of conversation and agreement about the final look

To some extent you have artistic input and to some extent you are paid to provide footage.

This should be agreed an embarkation on a project and also.. (and this is the big leap) producers need to understand what that agreement is or means!
Click to expand...

Yes, well. It can vary so widely across the board. Commercials, most typically you hand off the footage and wave it buh-bye, the agency and production company grade it however they please. On the very odd occasion I was invited to color on those. Features and television, most of the time I "get to" oversee the grade, but almost always on my own time. Extremely rarely have I been compensated for color work. There was that one time I negotiated a week of color for a feature, only to be locked out of the process entirely (was the theory that if I wasn't there, they didn't have to pay me?!). I should have sued, of course. I think they just assumed I wouldn't for the "relationship"...

At a certain point, I just gave up the fight.
 
morgan_moore said:
One should be able to shoot flat and have some form of conversation and agreement about the final look To some extent you have artistic input and to some extent you are paid to provide footage.
Click to expand...

Nothing new here. Bad grading is just the latest iteration of how clients can make a mess of your best work in post -- and it usually is beyond your control to do anything about it. On many occasions I've been appalled by how bad some people are at editing, This is a especially true for unscripted stuff like documentaries, reality shows, and sports features. I am an experienced editor, so I always shoot with the edit in mind and can envision how it should be cut together in post -- even when I know I won't actually be the editor. Some editors will see my vision and understand how the puzzle pieces fit together, but other editors (or a producer calling the shots) will totally botch the whole thing. Putting shots in the wrong sequence using the wrong takes, cutting too soon to a shot before it was settled, lingering on shots too long, totally not even using some really good shots, sitting on one shot for 20 seconds when a 2-3 shot sequence would have told the story better, etc. Other viewers may be oblivious to the missed opportunities, but I know what footage there was availalble to the editor because I shot it. A couple times I even took the risky step of doing a rough cut of a sequence to show the producer how the footage "looks". When my real motivator was to show them how it could be cut togehter, wthout actually coming out and saying that is what I'm doing. I've done that with grading too. Grade a few shots looking the way I envisioned them to look, and then sending them to the client with some other excuse. You can't just come out and say "here's how you should grade the footage" or "here's how you should cut this sequence together" so you have to get creative finding some other excuse to show them what you want them to see. In the end, bad editing can make the shooter look like thy didn't know how to get good coverage or didn't know how to handle the camera. In my opinion, bad editing is worse that bad grading.

Fortunately, those bad experiences are rare. Most professional full-time colorists and editors don't need me telling them how to do their job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top